"Human Nature not Love is the Criterion for Marriage."

Vice-President Joe Biden in the 2012 election campaign got the ball rolling on homosexual marriage when he stated marriage came down to the question, "Whom do you love?"

This definition of marriage is quite broad. One may marry anyone whom he loves. What if someone were to love a child? Would this be considered acceptable, progressive, and lauded as are homosexual unions in our current faddish frenzy? I suspect even the Vice-President would no doubt object that clearly one could not marry a child because he is too young. Ah, here the criterion has changed. Here the Vice-President has abandoned love as the determining principle and argues instead from the nature of man, age in this instance -- does age discrimination enter here? Children, he would argue, and rightly so, are not marriable because of their age, human itself nature placing limits on and defining marriage. No longer is love the determing principle but the nature of man.

Why then does not the nature of man not enter into the discussion of homosexual marriage? Age is a much more sublte distinction than sex, namely, sex means mankind is made up of male and female. Sex constitutes a continental divide in human distinctions, not a subtle distinction like age. Sex clearly shows a distinction amongst humans, namely, there is male and female. It shows that marriage is not merely limited to whom one loves but to the one whom he loves who is marriable, in this instance, to a person of the complementary sex. Consequently, sex is the first criterion before one may consider for marriage the person for whomone has affection. Why do the Vice-President and others argue against marriage in the case of pedophilia or other areas, e.g., polygamy, based upon the nature of man but not homosexuality? If love be the only criterion, then, one may marry anyone or any number of people whom he loves. Why only in the area of homosexual unions is the nature of man not a factor but only the ambiguous principle of love? The burden clearly rests upon the Vice-President and those who advocate homosexual unions to answer this question.

According to human nature and reason, homosexual unions are not marriage. Marriage comprises the union of two indivudals to form a unit, namely, the family unit. Only complements form units. Like entities do not form units. For example, a trailer hitch is comprised of complementary components. Two like components cannot form a hitch. Only complementary components can form a hitch. Such is the case with the marital union. Only complemenatary individuals can form the family unit. Consequently, like individuals cannot form a unit because they do not complement one another. Human nature, therefore, determines who may marry whom, not "love" ambiguously defined.

The Vice-President and those who advocate homosexuals unions are obligated to prove their point from the nature of man and reason. The public is not obligated to incorporate into public policy their unreasonable and unfounded views of marriage merely because they insist upon it. It is incumbent upon the Vice-President and those who advocate homosexual unions to prove their point from human nature and reason. It is not incumbent upon the public to disprove it.

Human nature itself, not "love" vaguely defined, determines who may marry whom. The public is not obligated to incorporate into public policy any view of marriage that does not comport with human nature itself and reason.